Talk:List of notable Doom community people
Advantages/disadvantages? What are the advantages/disadvantages of a list like this, vs. the auto built one at Category:People? - Jdowland 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) :Because this lists people whose articles haven't been written yet? Bloodshedder 11:38, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) ::indeed it does - however if they're noteworthy enough to be listed, surely they're noteworthy enough for a page - Jdowland 14:07, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) :::Even if they are noteworthy enough for a page, that doesn't mean the page has been written yet (or ever will be). Bloodshedder 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) ::::Until it is, what's the use of having their name in this list? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::How about switching the list and the category? so the link from Entryway goes to Category:People. This would make more sense, the list is usefull as a guide for future work - Szymanski :There appear to be some people in this list who aren't noteworthy and thus don't merit a listing, such as Alan Carr (whose article was previously deleted, has been undeleted because it's listed here, and is likely about to be deleted again). Methinks this list is overdue for a cull. -- RobertATfm (talk) 22:19, August 16, 2012 (UTC) growth of this page This page just had a lot of names dumped into it. It seems to me to serve little purpose (see discussion above), but if the concensus is that it is useful, should it not be split into past/present or similar? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The more of these bios I read, the more I wonder how much sense it makes to do them. Unless we somehow get a whole bunch of contributors from various different time periods who can help fill the gaps in our historical articles (I hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath), any selection of "the most important people" and "their most important accomplishments" is probably going to turn out incredibly subjective, and its degree of completion will be heavily skewed toward the present day (when Doom is presumably less widely played than ever). Ryan W 22:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::It's not really surprising that we can't have every piece of information from the past, but it's still better than nothing. There's also no guarantee that information provided by contributors from previous time periods would be any less subjective than it is now. In the end, this still provides a nice resource for anyone who's interested, even if it isn't perfect. - DooMAD 19:49, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) Writeups on people While some people on the front page are obviously prominent people who have made many contributions and are worthy of attention, others I've never heard of. Are we writing up everyone? Fraggle 07:50, 13 Jan 2005 (PST) :From what I understand, the person must have released several wads of some prominence. This is a somewhat subjective measure, but a good minimum reqirement could be anyone who has either gotten on the 100 best wads list, 11th annual caco awards or wad of the week for the Doomworld newstuff chronicles. I assume we want to avoid every doom wad author making a bio. Logically, we should prolly start with the most famous wad authors and work our way roughly down.Marius 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (PST) ::I agree that not everyone who made some WAD files should be listed. The list of people would become huge and meaningless. But there are also people that have a big influence in the community and have not made any WAD file worthy mentioning. They deserve to be on that list as well even though they do not meet the terms you suggest. CodeImp 20:17, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT) :::We've started putting together Doom_Wiki:Criteria_for_people_articles now -- Jon Style Do we intend to organize this list by first name, then last name, or by first name, then handle? Currently it is neither; e.g., Thomas "Panter" Pilger comes before Thomas "GoDfAtHeR" Zajic, but Josh "EarthQuake" Simpson comes before Josh "Jwarrier" Gevert. Ryan W 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :Honestly, I don't like that way of inserting nicknames; Thomas Pilger (aka Panter) seems neater and more applicable, don't you agree? : The article is just a random list, and thus not of much help other than to determine who has an article and who doesn't. It could be improved by splitting it into sections by type of member (I can think of designer, artist, programmer, speedrunner, deathmatcher, or miscellaneous). People that are notable in more than one filed could be listed in each. Perhaps each list should be a separate article, and this should be a disambiguation (optimally moved to Doom community people). If the list were split into articles, subgroups could easily be added where applicable (miscellaneous could include reviewers, musicians, sound engineers, webmasters, and so on). Who is like God? 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ::I personally favour the standard English-language sort order of last (family) name first, then first (personal) name. It is notable that at least some Asian languages order the names that way not only for sorting but in presentation, e.g. Mao Zedong. Speaking of which, I think it somewhat clumsy that the "Å" section is after the "Z" section; it should either be after the "A" section, or preferably integrated into that section. — RobertATfm (talk) 23:04, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::I've now moved the one Doomer whose name begins with "Å" into the "A" section, and deleted the "Å" section. The previous way didn't make sense, since "Å" is not a separate letter, it's just a standard Latin "A" which happens to have a "ring above" diacritical applied to it. This was also inconsistent, since there are a few Doomers listed whose names begin "Š" (S with caron above) and they're all listed under "S" as they should be. -- RobertATfm (talk) 01:21, July 19, 2012 (UTC) :::Å is a separate letter in scandinavian alfabets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85 Quote: "Å is often perceived as an A with a ring, interpreting the ring as a diacritical mark. However, in the languages that use it, the ring is not considered a diacritic but part of the letter."..."Since Å is a letter with a distinct sound, not an A with an accent, it is best to keep it when referring to Scandinavian words and names in other languages." The one doomer whose name begins with the letter Å - Anders Åstrand - is probably a scandinavian doomer and the deletion of the "Å" section could be considered reverted. If there are any scandinavian doomers with names beginning with Ø or Æ there should likewise be a separate section for these scandinavian letters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86 -- The previous unsigned post was made at 21:36, August 16, 2012‎ (UTC) by Martinav ::::OK, I'll do the revert. I only hope the defaultsort tag on the Anders Åstrand article (should it ever get created) works correctly. -- RobertATfm (talk) 22:19, August 16, 2012 (UTC) Layout is wrecked fixed in Opera This article doesn't layout properly in Opera; the names are all crammed into a narrow column about 20 pixels wide to the left, and as a result the article is about what would take up 800 pages in length. Is there any way to improve this? --Quasar 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) : Never mind, I fixed it. :D --Quasar 01:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Clean up: ill-advised? An IP editor has recently cleaned-up this article by deleting nearly all redlinks, and by removing the "category" (actually, template) from the article. However, I wonder if this was really a sensible idea, as the point of all the redlinks was surely that these are all notable Doomers who could conceivably have an article written about them, even though it actually hasn't (yet) been written. Another problem is that the page now has several empty sections, which (unlike redlinks) are definitely pointless. -- RobertATfm (talk) 00:20, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :Oops, I see from refreshing the Recent Changes page that I'm a bit late (as per usual?). The other admin has already reverted the "clean-up" and issued a short cool-down block on the IP. -- RobertATfm (talk) 00:30, June 1, 2013 (UTC)